Replicated "self-runner" ? - where is the xs energy coming from?

[muDped]

Centraflow,

I agree.  You have a sharp eye.

The primary winding might be 7 turns, considering
the source voltage, but it could be more or less
as well.  The rule of thumb for starting the
experimental process is 3 turns per volt.  Then as
circuit performance is evaluated this number
would be adjusted experimentally to produce
the best result.

The secondary winding (the choke from a Compact
Fluorescent Lamp electronic ballast) is typically
100 to 130 turns but that could be varied too.

Yes, the secondary should contain more turns than
the primary.

[Centraflow]

Dumped,

It's all in the detail, or so they say!

This reminds me of some work I did a while back "STEAP" which is a parametric system and the main trafo was 1:1 and the cap across the trafo was to create the parametric oscillation in the down time. That worked but the output goes to another trafo and then feeds back through a double system of batteries, if not the system dies. The interesting thing is the amp draw was negative 0. I can post a circuit if you want, but this thread is for another and don't want to side track here

Will have to learn how to post circuits here as I am new to this forum

Mike

[exnihiloest]

...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
...
http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm
...
http://phys.org/news162795064.html
...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html
...

My point was:

• the scientists, including some great inventors and engineers as Tesla, have proved the efficiency and the reality of their knowledge: see the everyday technology based on their science.
• the pseudo-inventors in the field of the "free energy" have not one device that really works, i.e. not one confirmed by duplications from third parties.

Your point is:

• there are scientists who lie.

Non sequitur. Of course the scientists also are human and so, not perfect, there are black sheeps. But your statement is irrelevant regarding what I said, it doesn't contradict any of the two points, nor it allows for denying them. So in matter of useful technology, the score remains the same, scientists: 1, FE pseudo-inventors: 0.

[Farmhand]

@Farmhand
It may be of interest that a great deal of R&D money is not being spent on thinking big but rather thinking very small on the nanoscale. Consider what might happen if we utilized a simple crystal radio circuit and printed a billion or so of them on something the size of a small flexible postage stamp and had each one tuned to a different frequency, now we have one billion EM recievers extracting energy from a very very large spectrum. Then we use nano-wires as antenna having the surface area of a few football fields in the volume of another postage stamp.... are you getting the picture?. At this point what do we have?, well we could literally have a "material" which could even be a fabric we wear which absorbs very large portions of the ambient EM energy spectrum which amounts to tangible amounts of energy.

There has always been plenty of energy everywhere however what was lacking was a means to get at it efficiently and many think nano-technology will get us there.

AC

Concerning many crystal radio circuits on a postage stamp sized board, I don't think that would work, i think they would all interfere with each other. Nice idea but I don't think it would work because of interference amongst other things. "are you getting the picture", hahaha really.

.. 

[Allcanadian]

@Farmhand

Concerning many crystal radio circuits on a postage stamp sized board, I don't think that would work, i think they would all interfere with each other. Nice idea but I don't think it would work because of interference amongst other things

To be honest my proposition was actually based on expert opinion of where the leaders in this technology believe it can go in the future.... which doesn't say a lot about your opinion does it?. They believe this is the next logical step and have basically proven the technology on a small scale through the nantenna technology, and no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well. Google-- Nantenna, Energy scavenging, EM energy scavenging etc... .
AC

[Farmhand]

I can accept then that it is a valid Tech.
Is there any links to outside references to this device or R&D ?

To be honest I was referring to them all being used in resonance at once and all outputting maximum energy because of it.
A crystal radio circuit uses resonance to magnify the disturbance. What I understood you described was a collective of tuned
circuits at different frequencies all outputting at resonance.

What it says about my opinion will depend on what the future brings. In my opinion.

and no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well

That reads funny to me.

[Farmhand]

Nantenna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna

As of 2012, only a few nantenna devices have been built,[citation needed] demonstrating only that energy conversion is possible. It is unknown if they will ever be as cost-effective as photovoltaic cells.

A nantenna is an electromagnetic collector designed to absorb specific wavelengths that are proportional to the size of the nantenna. Currently, Idaho National Laboratories has designed a nantenna to absorb wavelengths in the range of 3–15 μm.[2] . Ideally, nantennas would be used to absorb light at wavelengths between 0.4 – 1.6 μm because these wavelengths have higher energy than far-infrared (longer wavelengths) and make up about 85% of the solar radiation spectrum [3] (see Figure 1)..

Of course it is possible, that would be obvious before even building one. It's an antenna and if tuned to a frequency will respond well to excitation at that frequency. That is plain logic considering a single circuit on it's own.

..

[Allcanadian]

@Farmhand

Of course it is possible, that would be obvious before even building one. It's an antenna and if tuned to a frequency will respond well to excitation at that frequency. That is plain logic considering a single circuit on it's own.

Oh you read the Wiki, that's not what you want to be reading. I will try to keep this simple, it's not an antenna and the term Nantenna is simply a term they invented to give it relevance. In reality it is related more to a capacitor and the Casimir effect in that the physical  length does not determine the fundamental frequency.The distance between conductive paths must fall near the half wavelength corresponding to the crest and trough of the wave. This is why in any given time frame outside the context of the zero crossing the induced potential is maximum at a specific frequency. The conductive path diameter should fall on a harmonic ratio of the fundamental and be very much smaller that it ie... 1/32, 1/16, 1/8 for maximum efficiency. These properties are also why there is no interference, it is not an antenna it is an EM collector.

It is as they state in your quote an EM collector and the article cited is general information which is for the most part completely outdated. Personally I like the science journals which are kind of neat because it's basically a race, the first to publish wins. The problem is that in this day and age by the time they do publish let alone peer review what they have stated is completely outdated. Which in itself is also kind of neat, basically this shit is moving so fast nobody can keep up including myself.

The trick here is to understand the premise then try to jump two steps forward however it should be understood that by the time you jump your probably already two steps behind. Were not the only fish in this sea and the odds that there is someone one hundreds times smarter than us is astronomical.

AC

[Farmhand]

If Wiki is no good then could you provide another link. ?

Is the information in the Wiki false, or outdated, what makes it no good ? If i may ask.
It says there, that as of 2012 only a few Nantenna devices have been built.
And it also say's about the Rectanna as well referring to the regular antenna

And this still doesn't make much sense, either there is interference or there is not ?

and no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well

Still I'm never overly hopeful of extreme manufacturing techniques. These type of things will likely require hi tech and expensive equipment to produce and always in the hands of BIG BIS.

..



..

[exnihiloest]

...
it is not an antenna it is an EM collector.
...

Excellent joke!   
You should explain the difference, in the language of science, if possible.

[Grumpy]

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047

[exnihiloest]

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047

So what do you conclude for the difference?

[Grumpy]

So what do you conclude for the difference?

"EM Collector" is a combination of terms.  The nanoantennas are tuned to the IR range, so in simple terms you can say they convert heat into electricity, an "electromagnetic solar collector".

No free lunch though:

While the nanoantennas are easily manufactured, a crucial part of the process has yet to be fully developed: creating a way to store or transmit the electricity. Although infrared rays create an alternating current in the nanoantenna, the frequency of the current switches back and forth ten thousand billion times a second. That's much too fast for electrical appliances, which operate on currents that oscillate only 60 times a second. So the team is exploring ways to slow that cycling down, possibly by embedding energy conversion devices like tiny capacitors directly into the antenna structure as part of the nanoantenna imprinting process.

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

You should explain the difference, in the language of science, if possible.

An antenna is generally considered as a metallic conductor which may Tx or Rx EM energy. However a solar cell can receive EM energy but we do not consider it an antenna because it is a substrate. As well there are non metallic materials which conduct, laminates, substrates and such which fall outside the definition of an antenna. As well at the nano scale we deal with molecules and particles which may conduct or not and which again fall outside the definition of an antenna.

So we can say everything is an antenna or nothing is however we should understand this is simply an opinion or interpretation of how we see things. The issue is perception, if I have millions of molecules in a row it may be seen as an antenna however if there are only a few molecules it may not as there is no clear definition hence the term EM collector.

AC

[muDped]

Not always so great to be Windoze-free.

Try using OpenOffice to view a very large
spreadsheet - total failure.

'Tis true- there are some tasks which are
dependent upon the use of Windoze to
some extent, or an alternative.

Where possible in those cases I'll try the
Windows program with Wine to see how
it flies.  So far great success.  Wine is quite
incredible.

The only thing I presently use Windows for
(Win98) is printing.  Once I get that working
with Puppy I'll be truly free!

[exnihiloest]

"EM Collector" is a combination of terms.  The nanoantennas are tuned to the IR range, so in simple terms you can say they convert heat into electricity, an "electromagnetic solar collector".
...

A nantenna converts EM waves into electricity, not heat. The "heat" view is a misleading interpretation for at least two reasons. Heat is not EM waves only but a nantenna respond to the EM waves only. Radio EM waves are also "heat", all electromagnetic energy is "heat". Consequently a nantenna doesn't differ from a radio antenna, it's exactly the same principle, and thus a radio antenna is also an "electromagnetic collector", including a "solar collector" (for instance you get noise when pointing a dish antenna toward the sun). Any (n)antenna is an "electromagnetic collector".

[exnihiloest]

@Exn
An antenna is generally considered as a metallic conductor which may Tx or Rx EM energy. However a solar cell can receive EM energy but we do not consider it an antenna because it is a substrate.
...

This doesn't answer the question which was "why an antenna is not an EM collector?".
An "EM collector" is not necessarily an antenna, but an antenna is an EM collector!

Your logic is frightening. Would you say that a dog is not an animal because other kinds of animals are not dogs?!

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

This doesn't answer the question which was "why an antenna is not an EM collector?".

I believe the question was why a nantenna is not an antenna and as I said because it could be a laminate, a substrate or reduced to singular molecules or groups of them.

An "EM collector" is not necessarily an antenna, but an antenna is an EM collector!

Yes, EM collector covers a broad spectrum of devices and an antenna falls within this classification by definition.

Your logic is frightening. Would you say that a dog is not an animal because other kinds of animals are not dogs?!

Maybe something was lost in translation, by analogy an EM collector would be a major class (animal) covering a broad spectrum of things and the antenna a subcategory (Dog) which is a small part of this larger group.

AC

[exnihiloest]

@ExnI believe the question was why a nantenna is not an antenna and as I said because it could be a laminate, a substrate or reduced to singular molecules or groups of them.

Once again, frightening logic.
An "antenna" is defined by its function, not by its technology. A ferrite rod antenna is an antenna, very different from a filar antenna which is also an antenna, itself being completely different from a dish antenna and so on. But each one realizes the same function: to produce currents from EM waves.
A nantenna is exactly an antenna, for nanowavelengths, including the rectifier.

Yes, EM collector covers a broad spectrum of devices and an antenna falls within this classification by definition.

False again. A log-periodic antenna is a wide band antenna, a dish antenna also. Even without changing its length, a simple telescopic antenna can cover a ratio of more than 1:100 (shortwaves, VHF, UHF, even SHF), which is more than a nantenna (around 1:2).

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

An "antenna" is defined by its function, not by its technology. A ferrite rod antenna is an antenna, very different from a filar antenna which is also an antenna, itself being completely different from a dish antenna and so on. But each one realizes the same function: to produce currents from EM waves.
A nantenna is exactly an antenna, for nanowavelengths, including the rectifier.

That is your opinion, personally I do not agree with it as it is not the accepted definition, it is your definition.

False again. A log-periodic antenna is a wide band antenna, a dish antenna also. Even without changing its length, a simple telescopic antenna can cover a ratio of more than 1:100 (shortwaves, VHF, UHF, even SHF), which is more than a nantenna (around 1:2).

That is your opinion and again I do not agree with it as it is over generalized and makes no reference to how nor why conversion takes place. If this is the case we may as well just call everything an antenna in which case the term has no relevance.

AC